Expo Line - Surrey Langley Extension: Planning & Pre-Construction

[Colin4567]

Nobody read the part where she said a SkyTrain down Fraser Highway alone would cost 4x more than 27 km of LRT? She actually believes 17 km of SkyTrain would cost $10 billion (based on $2.6 billion of LRT capital costs estimated in 2012).

[KPELLY]

Originally Posted by Colin4567

Nobody read the part whet she said a SkyTrain down Fraser Highway alone would cost 4x more than 27 km of LRT? She actually believes 17 km of SkyTrain would cost $10 billion (based on $2.6 billion of LRT capital costs estimated in 2012).

That was part of what made me want to puke... lol

[Trainguy]

Originally Posted by Colin4567

Nobody read the part whet she said a SkyTrain down Fraser Highway alone would cost 4x more than 27 km of LRT? She actually believes 17 km of SkyTrain would cost $10 billion (based on $2.6 billion of LRT capital costs estimated in 2012).

Has anyone asked Langley what their chose of transportation option would be? I doubt those who would ride it would want to have to change technologies at KG station. "OK everyone off. This streetcar ends here."

It appears that Langley folk are not privileged enough to have a seamless ride westbound and return eastbound. Let's email Horgan....

[Urbanmetro]

Originally Posted by Trainguy

Has anyone asked Langley what their chose of transportation option would be? I doubt those who would ride it would want to have to change technologies at KG station. "OK everyone off. This streetcar ends here."

It appears that Langley folk are not privileged enough to have a seamless ride westbound and return eastbound. Let's email Horgan....

I don't think either Skytrain or lrt is a worthwhile investment of capital. The density is far too low and travel times to high just to get to Surrey. I'd rather see a Skytrain extension to Guildford than anything. We should look to great cities like Tokyo, London, etc for metro planning, NOT Portland or Seattle...

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by Urbanmetro

I don't think either Skytrain or lrt is a worthwhile investment of capital. The density is far too low and travel times to high just to get to Surrey. I'd rather see a Skytrain extension to Guildford than anything. We should look to great cities like Tokyo, London, etc for metro planning, NOT Portland or Seattle...

So our density is too low for good transit so we should look to denser cities for examples on good transit?

What was the density around Metrotown in 1985?

[cganuelas1995]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

So our density is too low for good transit so we should look to denser cities for examples on good transit?

What was the density around Metrotown in 1985?

Transit=freedom from a car=more people can live there and not just people who drive=more density

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by cganuelas1995

Transit=freedom from a car=more people can live there and not just people who drive=more density

Yes I understand that but the way you were saying it, it looked like you were arguing that the density is too low to go out to Langley with SkyTrain therefore we shouldn't do it. But if we go with your "Transit=freedom from a car=more people can live there and not just people who drive=more density" then it looks like you're arguing that we should go out to Langley with SkyTrain to spur growth in density. Which are you arguing?

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

https://www.cp24.com/news/driver-crashes-car-into-ttc-stop-downtown-police-1.3769698
Location: https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.6472023,-79.4038311,86a,35y,180h,39.52t/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en
Streetview: https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.6465937,-...W-_StL1EGiwAjsQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

Drunk drivers exist, I'm not sure the point of this...

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Even with all the drivers in the world it will never reach Skytrain frequencies due operating at grade with intersections. Can only block traffic flow patterns so much.

Skytrain is going to cost way more capital wise so again it's not like they could choose Skytrain on the same budget. I was commenting directly on the point that apparently we can't afford drivers when the alternative proposed was to run MORE buses.

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Let me put it this way:

Bus: Cheap to set up, expensive to operate

Light rail: Expensive to set up, expensive to operate

SkyTrain: Expensive to set up, cheap to operate

I'd say its more like:

Bus: Cheap to set up, expensive to operate

Light rail: More expensive to set up, less expensive to operate

SkyTrain: Expensive to set up, cheap to operate

[Cypherus]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

Drunk drivers exist, I'm not sure the point of this...

I think the point can be construed as this: if a drunk driver hit a skytrain station, the damage would be minimal as the station and transit users are above grade, out of harms way, and with little delay in service. This wouldn't be the case is a Surrey vehicle went off the road and smashed right into a curb separated LRT station, potentially killing users and delaying severely the service until cleanup.

[Cypherus]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

I'd say its more like:

Bus: Cheap to set up, expensive to operate

Light rail: More expensive to set up, less expensive to operate

SkyTrain: Expensive to set up, cheap to operate

So you agree skytrain is "cheap" to operate whereas LRT is "less expensive" - as if you are conceding that LRT is an expensive service, but "less expensive" compared to BRT. That logic doesn't score it any points.

Even if skytrain has higher capital costs - such costs have years of beneficial use until fully amortized. We are talking about higher upfront investment that creates decades of benefits and rewards for the region while the capital costs are naturally repaid over a number of years through higher service utilization. Can't say so much for LRT - cheaper capital cost = cheaper return on investment in terms of shorter useful life and lower service utilization. The old adage - "You get what you pay for" is true for capital projects.

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

Skytrain is going to cost way more capital wise so again it's not like they could choose Skytrain on the same budget. I was commenting directly on the point that apparently we can't afford drivers when the alternative proposed was to run MORE buses.

You keep saying this here but skytrain as originally planned is cheaper. Skytrain evergreen line per km is cheaper.

In other words the capital costs of skytrain today are cheaper then this LRT proposal.

As has been mentioned guide-way construction is cheap and requires less utility relocation and less land acquisition. The capital cost of this LRT has skyrocketed since it was first studied/proposed. Based on ALL info today the capital cost of skytrain is cheaper then this LRT.

[cganuelas1995]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

Yes I understand that but the way you were saying it, it looked like you were arguing that the density is too low to go out to Langley with SkyTrain therefore we shouldn't do it. But if we go with your "Transit=freedom from a car=more people can live there and not just people who drive=more density" then it looks like you're arguing that we should go out to Langley with SkyTrain to spur growth in density. Which are you arguing?

Build it and they will come.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by cornholio

You keep saying this here but skytrain as originally planned is cheaper. Skytrain evergreen line per km is cheaper.

In other words the capital costs of skytrain today are cheaper then this LRT proposal.

As has been mentioned guide-way construction is cheap and requires less utility relocation and less land acquisition. The capital cost of this LRT has skyrocketed since it was first studied/proposed. Based on ALL info today the capital cost of skytrain is cheaper then this LRT.

This cannot be stated enough times.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by cornholio

You keep saying this here but skytrain as originally planned is cheaper. Skytrain evergreen line per km is cheaper.

In other words the capital costs of skytrain today are cheaper then this LRT proposal.

As has been mentioned guide-way construction is cheap and requires less utility relocation and less land acquisition. The capital cost of this LRT has skyrocketed since it was first studied/proposed. Based on ALL info today the capital cost of skytrain is cheaper then this LRT.

The cost for this LRT has skyrocketed while simultaneously the max built out capacity has plummeted. Original proposal was 10 000 pphpd, now as discussed endlessly before it is less than half that original figure.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by Cypherus

I think the point can be construed as this: if a drunk driver hit a skytrain station, the damage would be minimal as the station and transit users are above grade, out of harms way, and with little delay in service. This wouldn't be the case is a Surrey vehicle went off the road and smashed right into a curb separated LRT station, potentially killing users and delaying severely the service until cleanup.

Just for reference, the SkyTrain line would be shut down for at least an hour, judging from when a car struck a guideway pillar in Richmond.

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by Cypherus

I think the point can be construed as this: if a drunk driver hit a skytrain station, the damage would be minimal as the station and transit users are above grade, out of harms way, and with little delay in service. This wouldn't be the case is a Surrey vehicle went off the road and smashed right into a curb separated LRT station, potentially killing users and delaying severely the service until cleanup.

Should we not invest in any at grade infrastructure because it could be hit? THis seems like a real reach...

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by cornholio

You keep saying this here but skytrain as originally planned is cheaper. Skytrain evergreen line per km is cheaper.

In other words the capital costs of skytrain today are cheaper then this LRT proposal.

As has been mentioned guide-way construction is cheap and requires less utility relocation and less land acquisition. The capital cost of this LRT has skyrocketed since it was first studied/proposed. Based on ALL info today the capital cost of skytrain is cheaper then this LRT.

Frankly I think both estimates are outdated. But when was the Skytrain one last updated? Especially in terms of the FH route there is going to be a need for significant fleet and yard expansion, as well as accelerated station expansions upon its consruction not to mention other upgrades. Factoring that in I would be astounded to see Skytrain costing less.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

Frankly I think both estimates are outdated. But when was the Skytrain one last updated? Especially in terms of the FH route there is going to be a need for significant fleet and yard expansion, as well as accelerated station expansions upon its consruction not to mention other upgrades. Factoring that in I would be astounded to see Skytrain costing less.

And the LRT would not also require significant fleet and storage expansions? The fact that the LRT requires it own entirely new OMC is a major cost factor that has been over looked until very recently in estimates.

Also station expansions are not a make or break aspect for such a Skytrain extension.

Also, would the same station expansions not still be needed with the LRT deleivering the same number of people into the system at King George? Our are you accidentally admitting that the LRT will generate lower ridership numbers?

Also everything does not need to be graded separated, but there are many cases / scenarios, especially with rapid transit, where doing such is the superior choice.